Sunday, 9 February 2020

Impeachment, Conspiracy and Tone


For the past two and a half years the Democrats have been involved in a conspiracy to oust a duly elected president of the United States. The Democrats impeached the President but the Senate acquitted him. The divide that started on the day of the 2016 election is not about to stop, what’s next?
The delusional Democrats ,who had the wrong candidate in the first place, cannot fathom that Trump was elected president. The impeachment process started the day of his election, and has continued and will continue well after his term in office is over. The conspiracy, in my opinion, is controlled by what the President calls the ‘swamp’, and it includes the upper echelons of the previous administration, the CIA, the FBI and even parts of the DOJ. The mistake that Trump made was that he should have followed the example of J.F. Kennedy, who fired a majority of the people from the previous administration of Eisenhower. Since Trump took over, the cabal of Comey , Brennan, Strzok, Clapper, Lisa Page, Ohr, among many other conspirators helped the House Democrats ‘  impeachment of the President.
Despite the fact that many reports fizzled, the Nancy Pelosi democrats proceeded to impeach the president for ‘Abuse of Power, and ‘Obstruction of Justice’, all based on hearsay evidence and “the say so” of a whistleblower about a phone call to the President of Ukraine. While the President claims that the call was ‘perfect’ , in my opinion, the President  who is not a politician should have said that the language used may have been to colloquial but not political. In fact the transcript showed that he used the word ‘us’ and not ‘me’ when he ask for help from the Ukrainian President.
The bigger issue that he abused his power because he wanted to investigate his opponent Joe Biden is not an impeachable offense. All politicians including Democrats investigate their opponents.  If that was the case, anybody running for the office of President could not be investigated for possible past actions and corruption. As for the obstruction of justice charge because he refused to allow members of his administration to testify under Executive privilege, is totally bogus. Obama did the same thing on many occasions as did other Presidents.  As for the claims that there were no witnesses, the Democrats called more than seventeen witnesses but no witnesses from the President. The Democrats could have gone to court to get a ruling, but their rush to judgement dictated their actions – that is why the Senate acquitted Trump. 
Here we are today, impeached but acquitted. President Trump is now accused of being vindictive and divisive, and accused of using language not befitting a President. Let’s look at the situation from a lay person’s point of view: If you had been persecuted, harassed, stabbed in the back for over two years, how would you feel? Having attained the greatest position in office, you immediately are accused of collaborating with foreign powers, and continuously attacked because you won an election. When the pundits and commentators demand that the President be more restrained in his address to the public and be more presidential, I would disagree.

The hypocrisy of the left was in full display for the past month. Those Democrats like Sen. Manchin, and Rep. Dingell  who came to the media and said that they have examined and taken into consideration all the facts, and then made a decision according to their conscience, were just filling air time as they knew full well that they would vote according to party lines. Mitt Romney the two time loser who voted according to his faith, just displayed the sin of ‘envy’ in its full characterization:” painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage”
Notwithstanding their failure to remove the President, the Democrats will now start investigating him once more. The calls for conciliation, under the guise of religious belief, will be put aside for political reasons. Trump should not let his guard down for on minute. While Ambassadors Yovanovich and Sondland,  Lt. Colonel Vindman and his brother  are  leaving , Trump should seek and fire all the conspirators in his administration when the Durham report comes out. A President has the right to have people he can trust around him.
The left always asks for collaboration and conciliation when they have been found wanting, but they never practice what they preach. There is no doubt that Trump is prone to bombast and self-aggrandizement. For those who believe that the President’s tone is more important that his accomplishments, please remember that he was not a politician, therefore do not expect political correctness, but that he kept the promises made in his campaign. I am more of a Churchill follower, and support what he said: “When you have your foot on a liberal’s throat – Push it”.  I hope that Trump will be on the attack for the rest of the 2020 campaign and rightfully so. Calls for conciliation are bogus and designed to put the Republicans on the defensive.  Conservatives must unite because the left is always united. For the sake of the United Sates, and indirectly the free world,  I hope that the Republicans win all three branches: House, Senate and Presidency , otherwise the U.S may be doomed as the rise of socialism/ communism among  authoritarian Democrats shows its ugly head.

Tuesday, 7 January 2020

The left’s hypocrisy has no bounds


The world has been freed from a terrorist, and yet the left around the world seems to be in mourning. Echoes of war mongering follows Trump’s order to eliminate an international terrorist threat have reached a level of partisanship so great that we will support our enemies because we hate the policy of a duly elected President?
 Iran has been at war with the United States since 1979, when the revolutionary militants took over hostages and the American embassy in Tehran, Ever since then the Iranian head of Iran’s powerful Quds force, Qassim Soleimani, has been the architect of attacks on Israel and American forces and assets and has supported terrorist militias like Hezbolla, and Hamas. He has ordered attacks on American troops and has been the ‘de facto’ second in command of the Iranian government after the Ayatolla, who would not still be in power for the army. His atrocities and killing of his own people, let alone foreigners have seen no exceptions. His actions over the years have made him the most wanted ‘terrorist’ after Bin Laden, and was branded as such by the Bush administration. Several U.S administration under different Presidents have allowed this butcher to operate with impunity in the Middle East, but in death the Democrats have sided with him rather than their elected President.
It is said that politics make strange bed fellows. What is so egregious is the behavior of the Democrats who will do everything to undermine Trump. While I disagree with Trump’s idea to attack cultural sites, which is a war crime, the world should support his decision to protect American citizens. His foreign policies may have been murky, but he was elected to end the wars. He showed tremendous restraint after attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, a missile attack on Saudi oil refineries, the taking of U.S sailors by the Iranian, the downing of a U.S drone, among many attacks by other terrorist groups supported by Iran on Israel and other Middle Eastern countries. The straw that that broke the camel’s back was the death of an American contractor and the brazen attack on the Iraqi U.S embassy, which incidentally is a declaration of war.
The Democrats want to restrict the President’s powers; they have tried this tactic since the day he was elected. They are so partisan that they ignore many precedents. Obama killed more people with drones; including an American terrorist, he killed Osama Ben Laden without going to Congress. Obama released billions of dollars in cash to Iran, which was then used to finance terrorists. The idea that the killing of the terrorist mastermind will cause WWIII, is ridiculous. It may cause military conflicts, but it is foolish to think that China and Russia would enter a war with the U.S to protect Iran. As for the demand to consult allies before conducting foreign policy is even more preposterous, given that allies today would rather negotiate with the enemy than take action. Are we sure that France and Germany are still allies of the U.S? They are more inclined to deal with Iran for economic purposes rather than curtail Iran’s continued nuclear ambition.  The progressive axis created by Obama to make the nuclear deal with Iran, also had China and Russia as partners. Today Iran is conducting joint military exercise with these two powers who are more interested in obstructing the U.S and creating bases in the Middle East. Obama’s appeasement policies created a situation where Iran was given free rein to have a nuclear weapon in fifteen years. Not forgetting the debacle of the Bush administration’s WMD in Iraq, we must not ignore that Iran has never given up the idea of becoming a nuclear power. Iran is the great disruptor in the Middle East; their strategy is based on a religious ideology which divides the region on sectarian lines- Shiite v/s Sunni. Their ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel, and the West.
Trump was elected on a campaign to end wars, but circumstances change and actions must be taken when the security of the nation is at stake. Protecting failed Obama policies of appeasement by undermining the constitutional powers of the President is the greatest danger because it emboldens enemies of the U.S. Democrats playing politics based on hate for their duly elected President, is the danger to the world.

Friday, 27 December 2019

Rebuttal to George Brookman Herald Column Dec 19 , 2919


With due respect to Mr. Brookman, an entrepreneur, businessman and philanthropist, while I agree with his wishes for optimism, I cannot disagree more with his assessment of the current situation at Calgary’s City Hall.

Mr. Brookman’s idea that we should compensate Councillors in a way that would entice more people to stand for office is totally out of sync with what politicians tell you when they enter the race for office. When they knock on your door to solicit your votes it is always about how they will serve you, never is the subject of compensation mentioned. However once elected, we have seen that they will approve salary increases and huge pensions for themselves, despite the fact that their own appointed citizens panel disagree with them., His other argument against limited terms is also wrong when he believes that individuals must be given at least 12 years to learn on the job and that they would be more knowledgeable as time goes by.  People get elected because they are supposed to be more knowledgeable than ordinary citizens. That they have ideas to make things better and that is why they seek to represent them

The Institute for Public Sector Accountability (IPSA) has always advocated a two term limit of eight years with the possibility of being re-elected after sitting out one term of four years. A two term limit of eight years is ample to make your mark if you are so qualified to represent the citizens, It is not the place to learn and be paid by the taxpayer; especially when the salaries, pensions and transition allowances are tied to the number of years on Council.

 Given his view that ‘if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys’; in Calgary this is debatable. We have seen hundreds of thousands of dollar in salaries, and pensions and yet what we have is a ‘zoo’. The talent that he supports has been vastly lacking in recent years. The results and tax increases clearly supports this assertion.
Mr. Brookman has in the past advocated for a 1% tax to finance arenas, and other huge expenditures. Perhaps he should look at IPSA’s proposed policies to change the Market Value Assessment system, change the disparity in business and residential taxes. It is suggested that instead of continuously trying to take money from the taxpayer to make the City better, he may look at alternative ways to finance these projects, like the proposed IPSA use of Tax Free Municipal Bonds which would give citizens an opportunity to really own these arenas and other facilities, instead of paying higher taxes.
I agree that we have to be optimistic, but it is hard for most Calgarians to feel that way when the roof is falling on many people’s heads. While not entirely Council’s fault, much of it could have been avoided with new ideas. As his friend says: “Same old George, always toeing the party line, always trying to sugar-coat the facts. Why can’t he admit that he’s living in the past and that he should just stop trying to tell us all how good things are.”
Not speculating that Mr. Brookman may be running for office at the next election, what worries me is that people trying to select candidates for the next elections may harbor Mr. Brookmans’ 20th century views - that is not optimistic.

Saturday, 14 December 2019

Conservatives Moving Forward


After a failed federal election and a departing leader, it is time for the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) to look inwardly and decide how to proceed in the future. For too long conservatives have fought against themselves and failed to win the last election which was handed to them on a platter. Let the reflection begin.
When Stephen Harper left the party, although he had lost the elections to a vacuous Trudeau, the party itself was in good shape. However the choice of a new leader was hampered by the division between small ‘c’ conservatives and social conservatives. The party in a very narrow vote gave the leadership to Andrew Scheer. In my opinion, Scheer never had the leadership qualities required to lead the party. Given his role as the Speaker of the House he did not have the qualities of a front bench Minister who had the opportunity to fight against the opposition in the House. He continued his role of House conciliator in the campaign and allowed Trudeau to define him instead of the other way round.
The current CPC is still too embroiled in a definition of conservatism. For those who still lament the ‘progressive’ side, they should get over it. Progressive has nothing to do with progress. Instead we should look at defining conservatism as being pragmatic and embrace what many see as a new approach to conservatism.
New conservatism is to embrace economic policies that reflect the new realities of the 21st century, as well as new mores in society. This means that we must embrace pragmatic environmental policies that address real environmental solutions and not focus on taxes and the redistribution of wealth. The economic policies should focus more on making family life more affordable; help make employment more accessible through a focus on training and apprentices rather than expensive education at Universities who have become bastions of indoctrination. Reduce the exploding costs of the welfare state and instead focus on reducing and eventually eliminating subsidies to corporations as well as placing caps on deductions and eliminating boutique tax policies while lowering tax rates.
As for Canadian values they should be reflected in our immigration policies, and move away from the disastrous approach to multiculturalism. More importantly, let us address the elephant in the room in a pragmatic way that will allow for a bigger tent party. Social values must not be the center piece of the new conservatism. Instead we must value freedom of speech and association. We can accommodate both sides. Conservatives, by nature, are law abiding citizens, we therefore will guarantee that existing laws will be respected and supported. By the same token we must understand that there are others in the party who have religious beliefs that must be respected. In a big tent party we can have both beliefs. While recognizing that we have a duty to protect the LBGTQ community, we can also respect the religious values of others. That also means that attending a parade is not a prerequisite to lead a country.
Furthermore the CPC must recognize that Canada is a vast country with a diverse population with different views and economic goals. The Liberal government has succeeded in dividing the country between East and West, and the CPC should focus in dismantling these barriers. One of the failures of the party was the inability to make a breakthrough in the GTA, and Quebec, Cities have become bastions of liberalism, because they are populated by the liberal elite. The movement of population from rural to urban is rising, and it will continue to affect the vote in large cities. The party must also attract more women.
The next leader will have to address these issues in a very short time, because with a minority government, an election could be called within the next two years. The CPC must ensure that a new leader reflects the new realities of the political environment. While I do not have any one in mind, I will venture to seek for a bi-lingual female candidate, who can embrace new conservatism ideas, while uniting the party. The leader must be able to stand up for pragmatic conservative ideas, and not cower to the liberal media desires of making conservatives look like Liberals. There are differences in ideology, and a leader should clearly articulate them without fear.
Offense is the best form of defense. The last election was lost because the CPC was unable to capitalize on the governments many mistakes. Despite the possible problems experienced by Trump -impeachment, and Boris - a Scottish separation, it would be wise to follow their example, because their style and policies seem to be winning conservative support. It is imperative that the next CPC leader ensures that there are no skeletons in her closet, because ‘those who live in glass houses cannot throw stones’ and the next election will be decided on how and who can throw the bigger stones.

Thursday, 31 October 2019

A ‘Scheer’ conservative conundrum


Despite the fact that the Conservative party under Andrew Scheer won more seats and the popular vote, they were unable to form a majority government. Do we need a new leader or a change in policies?
The last election was devoid of debate on the real issues. All parties had their agenda defined by a climate change narrative which has become the basis for economic as well as social debates. The left has used rhetoric branding every conservative policy as far right and therefore against Canadian values. Identity politics has become the main starting point for any debate. Political correctness defines what and how governments should create and implement policies. In that environment it is very difficult for a conservative leader to express himself without being seen as being a bigot, a xenophobe and be branded by other disparaging epithets.
Well before the last election, the Liberals helped by the media and the education system have been able to fashion the Conservative party to their image. Increasingly conservatives have been forced to move further to the left. For a long time the party was known as the Progressive Conservative party. Progressive means moving to the left, adopting many of the principles opposite to true conservative principles. A small ‘c’ conservative used to believe in limited government, the free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility an empowerment to solve problems. In this election, none of these principles were articulated and supported in the campaign.
I did not support Andrew Scheer in the leadership race. Not because I disliked him but because of his previous position in government. In Canada it is the Speaker's responsibility to manage the House of Commons and supervise its staff. It is also the Speaker's duty to act as a liaison with the Senate and the Crown. His role was to be fair and impartial and therefore, in my view this position did not prepare him to be a leader but rather one of conciliator, and his campaign style proved that he was unable to put forward the party’s right to govern, In a climate where the previous government and its leader had been found to be deficient in many areas, Scheer was unable or perhaps unwilling to attack his opponents. In fact he allowed himself to be attacked on his social views and his citizenship.
Under Scheer’s leadership the party did not differentiate itself enough to win the large cities electorate and more women voters. Economic policies were not articulated properly and used the old boutique taxation policies. Climate change which was a main electoral issue was not addressed properly with clearly defined policies and was left to a Swedish juvenile to dictate how adults should vote. There was no attack on the Prime Minister’s ethical and contemptuous behavior.
Scheer never addressed Quebec’s Bill 21, which banned religious symbols. This Bill which many found to be of a racist nature was never contrasted with attacks on his religious belief. He was attacked for not attending a Pride Parade, by no other than a former Conservative operative. The question is when did attending a parade become a prerequisite to be Prime Minister? Especially when the organizers of such a parade have banned organizations from taking part when they wanted to do so. Freedom of speech today is defined only by the left, and Scheer did not protect this right. Hate speech should never be condoned, but we should not allow others to define us through accusations of bias and bigotry when no such thing is being imposed. The Conservative Party of Canada abides by past laws and has never stopped defending them. In a democracy we still have the right to have beliefs without infringing on other people’s beliefs.
The conundrum for the Conservative Party is not whether they should choose a new leader, but rather what it stands for in the future.  A change in leadership does not require a change in individual or personality, but rather requires a change in beliefs and policies. Does the party believe in progressive ideas or does it go back to true conservative principles as mentioned above? More importantly once that determination has been made, does the party find someone who can articulate and defend these principles?
The party has some months to ponder these questions, the membership should clearly think about the country as a whole and decide whether the Conservative party is prepared to unite the country or leave it to the left to continue their policies of division to get re-elected.